Greetings,
You might say something similar occurs when a majority of one's thinking
proceeds from the 'child development' p-o-v. Or in my case, from the
Nagarjuna's MMK p-o-v. What do we actually know??? As opposed to what we
think we know?
Marsha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
Krimel said:
If what we "see" were just the raw sense data not only would it be out of
focus, upside down and have a hole in it, it would be entirely two
dimensional. While we can abstract three dimensional models from monocular
input through our experience with visual textures, relative size of near and
distant objects and so forth, binocular vision facilitates the process.
dmb says:
Visuality and perception are studied by philosophers as well as eye doctors.
I recently learned about an illuminating example of just how powerful
concepts are in the act of perception. Leonardo da Vinci did his best to
carefully observe the internal anatomy for a drawing of the same. We're
talking about an attempt to copy the organs of a corpse onto paper while
looking directly at the actual corpse. But Leo's medical knowledge came down
to him, for the most part, from Galen, an ancient physician who was wrong
about a few things. And these wrong things showed up in da Vinci's drawings.
He didn't copy what he saw so much as what he knew. The concepts he'd
inherited altered his perception despite the care he took to see clearly.
And this is true with all our perceptions. To a degree even further than you
suggest, we can only see what our concepts allow us to see.
[Krimel]
Wow, are you trying to tell me that the Great Leonardo was influenced by the
giants upon whose shoulders he stood? Are you saying that even a genius
working in the late 1400's got some details wrong? Next you will be telling
me he was a Christian or perhaps Master of the Priory of Sion.
Perhaps your tale would be bit more impressive if you did your home work
better. The tale you tell is in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American
Mind. The errors you refer to occurred in one of Da Vinci's early depiction
of the brain in his notebooks. He did more accurate drawing later of was the
first to show several structures of the skull and brain. He even corrected
Aristotle's suggestion that men have more teeth than women. A "discovery"
that probably did not require dissection to uncover. Maybe a little help
from a French milk maid... who knows.
At any rate I think you have misunderstood the degree to which I think that
perception shapes not only our conceptions but visa versa. A much more
striking example happens to each and every one of us in early childhood. It
has long been observed that when babies start to babble they all make
similar sounds; most of them anyway and all over the world. Later their
babbling begins to sound more and more like the language they hear spoken
around them. It is also known that there are certain sounds in many
languages that can only be detected by native speakers. People from other
linguistic cultures can not detect the differences between certain words. A
familiar example is Chinese speakers who seem unable to tell the difference
between the words "rice" and "lice". That's OK because they have two
different "sh" sounds that we can't hear.
At any rate young infants can hear and respond to all of the sounds in all
languages. They are in a sense, true citizens of the world. At a certain
point however they specialize in their native tongue and can not longer
detect the subtle differences in sounds of other languages. They and we
sense these sounds but can not perceive them. So, certainly our perception
is shaped by our history.
The point of rigorous study, as Da Vinci knew, was to be skeptical of our
perceptions and conceptions, to test and retest them. The notion that we can
not see past our present set of perceptions and reorder our conceptions of
the world is nonsense only a philosopher could love. In fact at each and
every moment we are reshaping both our understanding of the world around us
and the very structure of our brains.
[dmb]
And of course those who make observations about perception are no exception.
We also have inherited certain concepts about anatomy, particularly the
sense organs, and this has a profound effect on what we can see even with
respect to seeing itself. That's why I don't take your medical descriptions
as a serious argument against the MOQ. That's just a case of swimming in the
shallow end of the pool, which isn't really swimming at all.
[Krimel]
The whole point of science and in fact the task of each human being is to
construct a conceptual framework, a pattern of associations that help to
order and make sense of the world around us. We are pattern detector and
makers of meaning. But we are only as locked into such a framework as we
choose to be. Of all patterns of understanding, science is built on
challenging the existing framework. In the end scientific, philosophic and
religious dogmas are run over by karma. The road is littered with their
corpses.
I don't think the arguments I made earlier are, as you say, against they
MoQ. I suspect they do impact heavily on a sort of naïve new age perennial
philosophical understanding of the MoQ. Rather like distant headlights might
impact a certain kind of dogma wagging its tail as it licks itself in the
center of a highway.
[dmb]
Besides, in my case it is not an illusion. I really am out of focus and
upside down. There is also a hole in me but I'd rather not talk about that.
Its just too personal.
[Krimel]
I have long suspected such a hole might be in your head. But if you mean the
hole I think you mean it is kind of hard to tell since you seem to talk out
of it so much of the time.
Damn, I miss chatting with you sometimes, you always bring out the worst in
me... I hope all is well as you gear up for next term.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
